Jump to content

Talk:McDonald v. City of Chicago/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Looking ahead

Looking ahead, it seems likely all the Chicago-area suits will get consolidated under one name, while the San Francisco one works through a different docket. A more appropriate name might be "Post-Heller challenges to gun control laws" or something similar. Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No full-court appeal?

Not only this article, but also several external sources say that the NRA is appealing the decision of the 3-judge panel to the U.S. Supreme Court. I might be mistaken, but mustn't one first appeal to the full 7th Circuit court to hear the case en banc? If so, have the judges already said that they will not re-hear the appeal with the full court? Pine (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the two Chicago cases should be covered in the same article?

McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago are not the same case, and have been docketed separately for certiorari consideration by the Supreme Court. McDonald v. Chicago thus should not redirect here. See SCOTUSBlog, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/a-new-second-amendment-case/ - McDonald is docketed for consideration as 08-1521; NRA as 08-1497. 24.103.45.178 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the seperate dockets, they're different cases, but are they different in scope enough to each warrant an article? Perhaps this article ought to be expanded to note each lawsuit seperately? ~goodwid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.13.106 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This article used to be about McDonald v. Chicago (check the history), and probably should be again. McDonald is much more likely to get cert. Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be separate articles: one on McDonald and one on the two NRA cases. They are VERY different in scope, as well as legal approach. The NRA cases are narrow, focusing only on the handgun bans and selective incorporation. McDonald addresses the handgun bans, but also several onerous portions of the Chicago laws that affect all gun ownership. McDonald also is attempting to go beyond selective incorporation of the 2nd amendment, and incorporate the entire Bill of Rights en bloc, having an impact well beyond gun rights. Jrp2 (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen any objections, and it has been several weeks, so unless there are objections in the next day or so, I plan to remove the redirect from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McDonald_v._Chicago&action=edit and restore the McDonald v. Chicago page as a separate article. I plan on leaving this NRA v. Chicago page as-is, just adding links over to the McDonald page. I have a sandbox version of the McDonald text here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jrp2/mcdonald_sandbox . It is basically the content from prior to the move (May 20, 2009), though substantially expanded. Comments welcome. Jrp2 (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Resurrected separate article on McDonald here: McDonald v. Chicago by removing redirect from that page. Jrp2 (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge & delete IMO unless somebody plans on updating it 24.218.251.145 (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

not a "landmark" decision

It is ridiculous to describe this as a landmark SCOTUS decision in the first sentence. Only the most radical departures from previous interpretation can be described as such immediately. Roe v. Wade, Citizen's United, Heller would be examples. Only history could determine whether this ends up being a landmark decision, which will depend on what effects it actually has on the interpretation of law going forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.97.250 (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Only the most radical departures from previous interpretation can be described as such immediately.":
You are contending then that this is not a radical departure because Heller foreshadowed it? I think that's silly. It and Heller together make a radical departure. The second amendment had been formerly interpreted to mean the states have the right to form militias. TheScotch (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not true. The second amendment has been about an individual right since inception. The modern argument has been settled (correctly) based on historical context. Read the Federalist and any other number of sources to affirm. A study of the gunpowder incident in VA will easily confirm your militia comment as incorrect. Even a quick study of the meaning of militia itself will show your statement as incorrect. The only 'landmark' portion of this ruling is within a modern context; where combined with Heller the SCOTUS permanently put to rest all of the modern inventions and missinterperations of the second amendment.

Re: ""You are contending then that this is not a radical departure because Heller foreshadowed it?"":
It appears that the only justification for dubbing it a 'landmark' case is the headline of the cited article. If one were to base all their terminology on Christian Science Monitor headlines they would have a skewed view of reality. A word's appearance in a headline does not make it the accepted terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.228.126 (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The justification for dubbing it a landmark case is the basis for the decision, incorporation. Under McDonald, the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Second Amendment rights defined the subject of the case, but they did not define its scope. Incorporation, and its converse, states rights, is why Texas -- a strong gun-rights state -- opposed the petitioners in McDonald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.160.223 (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I have changed the text that, per the embedded comments, was not sufficiently neutral, and removed the NPOV template. If anyone still thinks that the article does not have a neutral point of view, please explain why in this talk page section, and/or update the article. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

166.205.8.123 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC) This quote is clearly not neutral: "Justice Alito, in writing for the majority, incorrectly concluded..." Nor is it correct; a judicial decision is rarely 'correct' or 'incorrect.' The modifier should be removed.

Also, there are some weasel words and an unfounded, unsourced claim: "Many commentators have pointed out, however, that this ruling effectively legalizes murder." Please remove this quote, as it is neither sourced nor accurate. 166.205.8.123 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Updates

this has been scheduled, see here http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/february-arguments-day-by-day-2/ Full Decent (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please update article Firearm case law in the United States

Was the ban ever in-effect? Or was did the legal challenge prevent its enforcement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.124.201.50 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have a court decision, could someone please update the article Firearm case law in the United States with the ruling of this case. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Dissenting opinion

We need a report on the dissenting opinion in the article. I may add one later, but not at this time. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the dissenting opinions are so incoherent, especially Stevens, that writing a cohesive summary will be challenging. Stevens' opinion doesn't make the least bit of sense at all; Scalia viciously dismantles it in his concurring. Breyer's dissent rehashed the Justice's disapproval of Heller and warned of the dangers of guns, it contains no substantive legal argument. The dissents are shockingly bereft of logic.Andy85719 (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, Mr. 85719's above assessment is colored by his political alignment and should be discounted. Of course, the dissenting opinions absolutely need to be reported and can easily be summarized.TheScotch (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not obvious to me. It's entirely possible that Andy85719's assessment is accurate.96.35.160.223 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added a couple very brief paragraphs that attempt to summarize the two dissenting opinions. This is no easy task as in particular Stevens' argument is long and complex. While I'm admittedly on the majority side on this issue I tried to keep it NPOV. I did note that essentially Breyers' argument hinges on a denial of Heller but stated that in lighter terms. Feel free to edit that into something more POV. Zhyla (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes

Someone needs to mention that this ruling gives murderers easy access to weapons. --76.77.139.243 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What? I'd like to see the page number where Alito says states should ease weapon access to murderers.Andy85719 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Odd. The ruling brought up the fact that Chicago had a firearms ban for years, and murder and crime increased dramatically after such law passed. Please stick to the facts.76.118.33.118 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Someone needs to mention that this ruling gives murderers easy access to weapons.":

Since we are obviously concerned here with weapons and since the ruling obviously severely limits the right of local and state governments to regulate them, of course it gives murderers--and every one else--easier access to weapons. This couldn't possibly be reasonably disputed. On the other hand, it's so obvious, it shouldn't need to be stated either. TheScotch (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually your statement is a logical fallacy called: "Affirming the Consequent" Example:

Argument: If guns aren't regulated, guns are more available. Criminals have guns. Therefore, guns need to be regulated. Problem: Guns can be acquired by criminals illegally. Gun regulations are not followed by criminals.

If this is too complicated for you, maybe a simplier example?

Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained. Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (eg. dew).

Forming a conclusion in your own prose style, since you have obviously used a logical fallacy in defense of your own obviously biased views, we obviously don't take much stock in your conclusion. Lack of facts, logical errors, and emotional manipulation aren't ways to win Supreme Court cases either. This couldn't possibly be reasonably disputed. "On the other hand, it's so obvious, it shouldn't need to be stated either." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.38.146 (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Lower Court Opinion

Since this seems debatable, I'm going to bring this open for debate. The lower court's decision was based on the fact that they were not empowered to incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states. It was not an affirmation of the bans passing any broader standard. As it stands, the article tries to make it seem like SCOTUS was reversing united lower courts, when in fact, the 7th Circuit's opinion was clearly on the side of incorporation, but simply declined to overstep their Constitutional authority.

This change must be made to accurately reflect the 7th Circuit's opinion. As it stands, this is NPOV. As such, I have resubmitted my changes to reflect a neutral point of view, but I invite debate on why this is not neutral.122.172.9.70 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See lower court's opinion, included as Appendix 1 in the petition for cert: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition1.pdf. One quote: "Repeatedly, in decisions that no one thinks fossilized, the Justices have directed trial and appellate judges to implement the Supreme Court’s holdings even if the reasoning in later opinions has undermined their rationale."122.172.9.70 (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Otis McDonald

Just a suggestion for those actively editing this article: it would benefit from a paragraph or two about the original circumstances of the case, i.e., who is Otis McDonald, and why did he bring this suit? Bms4880 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea and done. - Balph Eubank ✉ 21:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Against the States?

I'm having trouble understanding this phrase: ... since the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would arguably be applied against the states. "Against" the states? The roll-over explanation talks about applying the bill of rights to the states, not against the states. I understand the notion that the Bill of Rights applies "to the states" means that, even though the 1st amendment says Congress shall make no law..., it now applies to the state and local governments as well. But what does it mean that the Bill of Rights would be applied "against" the states? This needs clarification. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on McDonald v. City of Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McDonald v. City of Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

comment

For decades during modern times, gun control supporters made all sorts of outrageous claims about the second amendment. The amendment applied only to the state's militia. The amendment was about a collective right. Reams of paper were used to explain in detail why this was not an individual fundamental right. That has now been corrected once and for all.

Does something need to be said about these modern gun control 'inventions and lies' and the outright emotional manipulations which were applied in an attempt to eliminate one of our constitutionally enumerated fundamental individual rights? Imagine the hue and cry in the press if this sort of attack was launched in modern times against the 1st amendment?

So now that this question is 'decided law', can we expect the ACLU to defend the second amendment vigorously? Will Harvard Law and other similar prestigious institutions of higher legal learning take public positions that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right for all citizens; no different than any other right enumerated in the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights? Will they instruct their students in these errors? Will pro bono support be provided to reverse illegal statues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.38.146 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please confine remarks here to discussion about what should go in the article. When you do so, leave your political bias elsewhere. In any case, don't rant. TheScotch (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago/Archive_1&oldid=1077403277"